A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.

Friday, 28 May 2010

The new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has launched a new education bill, aimed at reforming the school system. One of the stated aims of the bill is to give individual schools more control over the curriculum. We hope this means the previous government’s plan to force state-funded schools to provide sex and relationships education will not be revived by the new government. We know, however, that the pro-abortion lobby will attempt to revive that plan. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has taken up the anti-life agenda through new draft guidance which recommends that teenagers are given comprehensive, confidential access to so-called ‘sexual health services’ (i.e. abortion and abortifacient birth control), including through schools.

Please write to the government and to your MP, urging them to resist pressure to revive the previous government’s plan to force state-funded schools to provide sex and relationships education. Please write to:

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP (pictured), secretary of state for education, and Nick Gibb MP, minister of state for schools, both at the Department for Education, Castle View House, East Lane, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GJ You can also email Mr Gove and Mr Gibb via a web-form on the department’s website

your own MP at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. You can also email your MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps (where you can also find out who your MP is if you are not sure).

Please read SPUC's critique "Sexual health in schools" for facts and arguments about sex education in schools that you can use in your letters.

The high court in Belfast has granted leave to SPUC for a full legal challenge of the decision to re-issue controversial guidance on abortion, despite a last-minute attempt by the Northern Ireland health department to have the case adjourned.

We argued that the publication of the guidance in its current form was perverse, and contravened a 30 November court order for the document’s withdrawal. Following the success of our previous judicial review, the department sought permission to withdraw only the sections of the guidance dealing with counselling and the rights of medical staff to non-participation in abortion. Those sections were heavily criticised by Lord Justice Girvan on 30 November. He ruled that the issues in the guidance were inter-related, that the guidance must therefore be withdrawn in its entirety and reconsidered.

James Dingemans QC, representing SPUC at today's hearing, argued that the department’s decision effectively ignoring last year’s ruling was “simply impermissible and irrational”. Mr Justice Treacy said that our application had more than exceeded the threshold necessary for the challenge to go to the next stage of a full judicial review.

“Today’s events are yet more evidence of the bitter and irrational approach taken by the department of health to the issue of abortion guidance. At the very last minute the department asked the judge for an adjournment but refused to give any reasons for a four-week delay. Sadly, this is the way the department has behaved all along. It has disregarded public opinion, the will of the Assembly, the Stormont health committee and even the high court, in order to pursue an agenda of widening the scope for abortion in Northern Ireland.

“We don’t believe that the department has given any serious consideration to the ruling made by Lord Justice Girvan last year. A document that says nothing about counselling of women or the rights of medical staff cannot possibly provide adequate guidance to doctors. Naturally, we’re pleased that Mr Justice Treacy has granted leave for the case to proceed.”

On 30 November Lord Justice Girvan ruled against the department’s guidance on two grounds:
(1) because abortion remains illegal in Northern Ireland, it was wrong to expect medical providers to give non-directive counselling to women who might be considering abortion.
(2) the guidance was wrong regarding the rights of health professionals to non-participation in abortion (conscientious objection).
On 14 December Lord Justice Girvan confirmed that the guidance should be withdrawn in whole and not merely in part.

Also yesterday, the Family Planning Association (FPA) published an opinion poll of Northern Ireland’s obstetricians and gynaecologists, which the FPA claims shows a groundswell of support for a more liberal abortion law. Liam Gibson says it is disgraceful that the FPA, which receives funding from the Northern Ireland health department, should be conducting a campaign to overturn the Province’s legal protection for children before birth. Liam rejects the significance of the poll and told the media yesterday:

“The FPA is considered to be a charity but its number one aim is to promote abortion on demand. Yet it has consistently failed to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to accept the killing of unborn children.
“While the FPA claims that this latest survey represents the opinions of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the survey only deals with abortion for social reasons. Medical grounds for abortion are never mentioned, because there is not one medical benefit associated with abortion. There are, however, hundreds of scientific studies showing the damage effects abortion has on women and their subsequent children. Abortion is not healthcare, but a fatal form of child abuse. It is never justified. Northern Ireland has the best maternal mortality rate in the United Kingdom because our law protects both women and children.

"The FPA's suggestion that so-called 'abortion charities' should be licensed to carry out abortions in Northern Ireland demonstrates that the FPA’s real concern is its financial interests in the abortion industry.”

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Alison Davis, who represents disabled people as national co-ordinator of No Less Human, a group within SPUC Pro-Life, has responded to the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute Michael Bateman (pictured) who assisted his wife Margaret to commit suicide.

Alison told the media earlier today:

"This case makes clear what I suspected when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)'s guidelines were first announced: that the killing of disabled or ill people would continue to go unpunished, but that the situation would further threaten the lives of sick and disabled people.

"The killing of Mrs Margaret Bateman by her husband Michael had particular personal resonance for me. Some years ago I too had a settled wish to die, and actually took steps to end my life. I was saved by my friends who, unlike Mr Bateman, refused to accept that I was right to think my life had no value and was better ended. And in turn, my friends were helped in refusing to accede to my request for help to die by the fact that such an action was then against the law.

"In the Bateman case, punishment was ruled "against the public interest" because Mrs Bateman had had 'chronic pain for decades' and 'a clear and settled wish to die'. At the time when I wanted to end my life, I also had chronic pain such that it was close to being unbearable, and I wanted to die for over ten years. I also had severe disabling conditions and used a wheelchair full-time. These factors combined would have served to ensure that, had the DPP's guidelines been in place then, anyone aiding my death would have gone unpunished.

"Today I still have severe disabling conditions, and continue to be a full-time wheelchair user. I still have extremely severe pain, which is not well controlled, even with morphine. I changed my mind about wanting to die because my friends helped me, over a long period of time, to realise that my life did have value, and that I could help others despite, or perhaps because, of my own suffering. They were assisted and encouraged by a law that was on the side of life.

"The Bateman case shows that the DPP's guidelines, and the actions of the CPS with his approval, will in fact have the effect of encouraging families or friends to kill so-called 'loved ones' and ensuring that suffering people like Mrs Bateman don't get the kind of help and support I had to continue living. It will mean that more disabled people will be killed out of misplaced 'compassion' and it will continue the pretence that 'courage' lies in killing suffering people, rather than in helping them to live."

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Britain’s continuing high abortion statistics mean that many doctors need to be more aware about the damage abortion does. I've been responding today to the publication of the figures for abortion in 2009 in England and Wales and Scotland.

Although the figures indicate a slight fall in the incidence of abortion, the equivalent of 20 classrooms of children a day are still being killed by abortion in Britain.

SPUC is therefore reaching out to doctors, to provide them with better-quality information about the reality of abortion. Abortion not only kills children, it hurts women too. Disability in unborn children is often put forward as one of the main arguments in favour of legal abortion. Doctors and the public generally are unaware, however, that there is a solid body of evidence showing that the psychological after-effects on women can be particularly traumatic when an abortion is undertaken for reasons of foetal disability.

SPUC will be sending doctors evidence compiled by Dr Greg Pike, an Australian specialist in neurobiology and bioethics, on the damage abortion may cause to women’s health. We hope that this evidence will help doctors understand that women deserve better than abortion. Please read "Abortion and Women's Health" by Dr Greg Pike, May 2010

“The advertisement is deceptive, in that it doesn’t explain what Marie Stopes is and what Marie Stopes does. Marie Stopes' main business is the killing of unborn children. Its telephone consultation line is an abortion booking service which puts women on a fast-track to abortion. 90% of the so-called services Marie Stopes provides in England and Wales are abortions. In 2008 they performed almost 600,000 abortions overseas. Most of its £100 million annual income comes from abortion and is spent on abortion, including campaigning for a right to abortion. (Marie Stopes International’s Charity Commission return 2008)

“Marie Stopes advertises itself as an abortion provider on the London Underground but has soft-soaped its image in this Channel 4 advertisement. We can only conclude that this is a way for Marie Stopes to evade restrictions on advertising. We have written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, urging him to use his powers and instruct Ofcom to block this advertisement. Women deserve better than abortion. We want the government to ensure that women are not misled by this kind of deceitful propaganda.”

Please act immediately to help stop the ad, by:

contacting Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Secretary of State has the power to stop the ad through his powers relating to Ofcom - please urge him to use that power. The department's email address is enquiries@culture.gov.uk (alternatively enquiries@culture.gsi.gov.uk ) and the department's telephone number is (020) 7211 6000.

contact your MP, asking him/her to urge the Secretary of State to stop the ad. You can email your MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps You can also telephone your MP via the parliamentary switchboard on (020) 7219 3000.

Friday, 21 May 2010

Channel 4 will be broadcasting an advertisement by Marie Stopes International, the abortion promoter and provider, on Monday evening at 10.10pm. Please act immediately to help stop the ad, by:

contacting Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Secretary of State has the power to stop the ad through his powers relating to Ofcom - please urge him to use that power. The department's email address is enquiries@culture.gov.uk (alternatively enquiries@culture.gsi.gov.uk ) and the department's telephone number is (020) 7211 6000.

contact your MP, asking him/her to urge the Secretary of State to stop the ad. You can email your MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps You can also telephone your MP via the parliamentary switchboard on (020) 7219 3000.

Below are some arguments and information you can use when writing to the Secretary of State and to your MP:

Allowing abortion to be advertised on TV will lead to more unborn babies being killed and to more women and girls suffering the after-effects of abortion. Abortion ads will trivialise abortion. It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.

Marie Stopes centres are not advice centres but abortion factories. They fast-track women down a path to abortion, because they have an ideological commitment to abortion. Even if Monday night’s ad doesn’t mention abortion, Marie Stopes is well-known as an abortion provider (cf. their “Abortion” ads on the London Underground.)

Marie Stopes may claim to be a non-profit organisation, but they have a financial interest in drumming up demand for abortion. Marie Stopes has a cavalier attitude to obeying legal restrictions regarding abortion, and has been implicated in illegal abortions overseas. Neither Marie Stopes nor any similar organisation should be allowed to advertise the killing of unborn children.

Although Marie Stopes claims to be a charity helping women, its huge multi-national revenue means it can afford TV advertising, which is hugely expensive. This creates an unfair playing field, as pro-life groups simply cannot afford any such advertising.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has the power to insist that Ofcom controls advertising in this area. We call upon him to intervene immediately. [cf. Communications Act 2003 s.321.

Abortion is in English law a criminal offence (Offences Against The Person Act 1861, though not prosecuted if the conditions of the Abortion Act 1967 are met). Advertising of a criminal offence is not permitted.
European law also prohibits the advertising of restricted (i.e. on prescription) medical procedures, such as abortion. [cf. the Audio-Visual Media Regulations 2010, preamble, 89]

The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that advertising is not offensive or harmful. Abortion is offensive to the countless women damaged by abortion; and lethally harmful to the hundreds of unborn children aborted every day.

Last year 29,000 people signed a SPUC-organised paper petition to the prime minister against a proposal to allow abortion agencies to advertise on television and radio. Hundreds of people also wrote submissions to the broadcasting authorities against the proposal.

“Marie Stopes may claim to be a non-profit organisation, but they have a financial interest in drumming up demand for abortion. Marie Stopes has a cavalier attitude to obeying legal restrictions regarding abortion, and has been implicated in illegal abortions overseas. Neither Marie Stopes nor any similar organisation should be allowed to advertise the killing of unborn children.

“We are taking advice regarding the legality of the scheduled advertisement. Although Marie Stopes claims to be a charity helping women, its huge multi-national revenue means it can afford TV advertising, which is hugely expensive. This creates an unfair playing field, as pro-life groups simply cannot afford any such advertising.

“Allowing abortion to be advertised on TV will lead to more unborn babies being killed and to more women and girls suffering the after-effects of abortion. Abortion ads will trivialise abortion. It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion.

"The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has the power to insist that Ofcom controls advertising in this area. We call upon him to intervene immediately. [cf. Communications Act 2003 s.321]

"Abortion is in English law a criminal offence. Advertising of a criminal offence is not permitted.

"European law also prohibits the advertising of restricted (i.e. on prescription) medical procedures, such as abortion. [cf. the Audio-Visual Media Regulations 2010, preamble, 89]
"The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that advertising is not offensive or harmful. Abortion is offensive to the countless women damaged by abortion; and lethally harmful to the hundreds of unborn children aborted every day."

Last year 29,000 people signed a SPUC-organised paper petition to the prime minister against a proposal to allow abortion agencies to advertise on television and radio. Hundreds of people also wrote submissions to the broadcasting authorities against the proposal.

Michael Hill, Amy Sheridan-Garrity and William Jenkinson successfully completed the Windermere marathon for SPUC on Sunday 16 May. Amy and William’s achievement deserve a special mention. Both have completed shorter distances before Sunday, but this was the first time either of them had completed the full 26.2 mile marathon distance. As well as raising much needed funds for SPUC’s work, the trio from the Society’s Yorkshire region, have used the event to raise awareness of the scale of Britain’s abortion problem.

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

I am confident that I would be sacked by my organization if I had written an article, and I had publicly refused to back down, which implied that I supported a direct abortion. That's what tends to happen in the secular world when you persist in a position which completely undermines the raison d'etre of your organization: in SPUC's case the value and inviolability of every human life.

By way of complete contrast, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has stood by the original wording of his article in L'Osservatore Romano, last year, which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. He has not been sacked. Indeed we hear that he has been invited by the Pontifical Council for the Laity to speak this week at their annual plenary meeting in Rome on “The responsibility of the lay faithful in politics.”

Such an invitation adds insult to lay Catholics who have fought for over four decades to oppose all direct abortion, to the injury to the pro-life movement which I described in my post earlier this month. It's also an insult to the five prominent members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who - following a meeting of the Academy - called on Pope Benedict to remove Archbishop Fisichella as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

The responsibility of the lay faithful in politics is to continue to call for the sacking of Archbishop Rino Fisichella.

Monday, 17 May 2010

Vernor Muñoz, the UN Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on the right to education, has requested - worldwide - submissions on the "human right to sexual education" which will be the focus of his annual report to the UN general assembly in 2010. Submissions must be received by this coming Friday, 21st May!

Mr Muñoz particularly wants to hear the opinion of students, teachers and parents.

Leading pro-life politicians around the world will be raising questions as to why there has been such an appalling dearth of information about this major UN initiative.

In the very short time available, if you have recently made a submission on compulsory sex education to a government body, perhaps you would adapt it as necessary and send it in to Mr Muñoz. (See contact details below.)

For many years in Britain, through school-based sex education and relationship programmes, the British government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. Earlier this year, the British government introduced legislation for compulsory sex and relationships education - from 5 years to 16 years - which was designed to extend such access to abortion for children to every secondary state school in the country. Thankfully the Government's efforts were defeated.

Mr Muñoz writes:

"It is strongly recommended that submissions are made in English or Spanish, due to our limited capacity for translation. However, contributions in any of the UN working language are welcome. Please send contributions to the report by e-mail here, or here.

"In order for the information received to be used for the report of the Special Rapporteur, submission of responses is encouraged as soon as possible and no later than 21 May 2010."

I have emphasised in the text below aspects of Vernor Muñoz's announcement which are particularly worrying for parents who are, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the primary educators of their children. Mr Muñoz writes:

"The topics to be developed in the report are:

I. Legal framework.
II. Incorporation of Sexual Education in the official curriculum of compulsory education: Inclusion in the official curriculum. Incorporation through plans and projects. Ages in which it is provided. Joint Education of boys and girls Proportional time in relation to the total curriculum. Teacher´s profile.
* III. Incorporation of Sexual Education in teacher´s training: Levels in which teachers are trained regarding Sexual Education Curriculums available.
* IV. Gender Mainstreaming in Sexual Education Outline of contents Gender and Violence Against Women perspective. Non discrimination approach Diversity approach Masculinity.
* V. Obstacles in the implementation of Sexual Education: Barriers from the Governments, such as budget, training, etc. Practices and actors affecting negatively this task. Specific barriers in public policy.
* VI. Best practices.

"Article 16 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] declares: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' Thus, article 16 recognizes the common sense fact, sometimes overlooked by governments and international organizations, that the family exists prior to the state, is the foundation of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect it.

"Article 16 goes further. It recognizes the right of a man and woman to marry and found a family. In other words, it recognizes that the family is founded ... upon marriage. We can all be thankful the Declaration recognized these fundamental truths."

Listen carefully to William Saunders's explanation of how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds parents as the primary educators of their children. He said:

"Echoing the approach of article 16 [of the Declaration], article 26(3) recognizes that parents are the primary educators of their children. 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children' [the article states]. As article 16 recognized the priority to the state of the family founded upon marriage, article 26 recognizes the priority of the wishes of parents regarding the education of their own children over any designs of the state. Remember, per article 16, the State is obligated to protect the family. If the State presumes to usurp the rights of parents to choose the education of their own children, it damages the family, violates its own obligations, and undermines the foundation of a just society and State."

William Saunders underlined the historical significance of the Universal Declaration's insistence on parents as the primary educators of their children by citing Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, former US ambassador to the Holy See, and President of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences. In her authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A World Made New, Mary Ann Glendon wrote:

"In the article on education [26]...[the drafting committee for the Declaration] made an important change, influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime's efforts to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's program.... [A]fter Beaufort of the Netherlands recalled the ways in which German schools had been used to undermine the role of parents, a third paragraph was added: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.'"

William Saunders continued:

"In other words, one of the most important lessons drawn by the framers of the Declaration from the experience of the Second World War was that parental choice in education is a fundamental plank of international peace and security".

Pat Buckley and Peter Smith, SPUC's full-time lobbyists at the United Nations, in Geneva and in New York, are keeping me posted of developments and I will return to this topic soon.

Thankfully, some parents are rebelling against state-imposed sex and relationships education. If you know of any similar examples of parents standing up to defend their rights as the primary educators of their children, please send me details. Pat Buckley and Peter Smith would like to share such stories with UN delegates from many developing nations and Muslim nations who are determined to defend human life and family life in the international arena.

In the meantime, and in the very short time we have, the message needs to be sent to the United Nations that they must not seek to undermine parents as the primary educators of their children through an attack on fundamental human rights language embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A new totalitarianism is attacking parents, families, the innocence of young people and the lives of unborn children - just as surely as the Nazi regime attacked fundamental human rights in the first part of the last century.

PGD stands for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis on which Alison has written a most useful question and answer paper for those wishing to know more.

Alison, who has spina bifida, tells me:

"The title of the symposium, organized by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), speaks volumes about ESHRE's attitude to killing what they regard as 'imperfect' human beings. There seems to be no consideration at all of the case against, or the effect upon a new and rapidly developing human embryo of having cells removed for PGD examination."

Alison explains:

"PGD is a way of examining in the laboratory human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology (i.e. in a test-tube).

"If a genetic disabling condition is detected, the embryo is thrown away. If not, the embryo is implanted in the woman, and allowed to grow and develop and eventually to be born. Pre-implantation diagnosis means that the embryo is examined before implantation in a woman's womb. PGD has also been used to identify an embryo that can serve as a tissue match for a sick child - and in some IVF programmes in other countries, PGD has been used to select the sex of an embryo for the purposes of family balancing ...

"The philosophy behind the day is I think summed up by the title of one of the sessions: "PND or PGD - which one to choose?" by Joe Leigh Simpson. (PND stands for pre-natal diagnosis). This presupposes that couples have only two options if they have chance of having a genetically/chromosomally disabled child (ie PND or PGD) and both those options are destructive if the child is found to be disabled.

"It is clear from ESHRE statements and policy documents that it strongly supports PGD and PND testing. The 'patient' always refers to the woman seeking embryo screening rather than to the embryo, and no consideration is given to the welfare of the embryos, other than those found to be 'unaffected' for whom they recommend freezing.

Alison concludes:

"There is nothing at all to celebrate in 20 years of human embryo testing which is designed primarily to eliminate disabled individuals. Although it's often claimed that IVF + PGD is "preferable" to PND + abortion, in fact both are pure eugenics, and there is nothing ethical or preferable about killing a human being at a younger age."

Friday, 14 May 2010

Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, has given an interview to The Daily Mail, which reports:

"The Health Secretary also said he supported a reduction in the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22, having voted unsuccessfully for a change in the law in the past.

"'I felt that there was increasing evidence that a small reduction in that time limit was consistent with the potential for life, and sustainable life, in a baby born very prematurely at that point,' he said.

"The Health Secretary stressed that any further move to change the law would have to be initiated by a backbench MP and would be subject to a free vote in the Commons.

The Pro-Life Alliance has commented on The Daily Mail report in a press release:

“It is reassuring to hear that the new Health Secretary has put abortion law reform at the forefront of the agenda so early on in the new administration. While we should not get carried away about the significance of a two week reduction, it is certainly a step towards our final aim of bringing abortion to an end in the United Kingdom. We expect abortion law reform to come up at some point in this parliament and are confident that a tightening of the current regulations will result.”

That is exactly the sort of irresponsible commentary on the new government that is dangerous for unborn children and unhelpful to the pro-life movement. The Pro-Life Alliance makes no mention whatsoever of Mr Lansley’s support for:

• making abortion more widely available. On 12 May 2008 he told the House of Commons:

“[I]f a woman needs an abortion in terms sanctioned by the Abortion Act 1967, it must surely be better for it to be an early, medical abortion than a later, surgical one. I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, need to be maintained”

and

“I would personally be lo[a]th to move from the principle of linking the time limit for abortion to the viability of the foetus.”

• his endorsement of the 2003 report by the Commons health select committee, which called for open access to abortion services through a national advice line and for non-hospital nurses to be allowed to perform early non-surgical abortions, such as with RU486/prostaglandin

• the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a radical entrenching and expansion of destructive and abusive embryo research. Mr Lansley voted the Act at third reading.

It is simply absurd for the Pro-Life Alliance to claim that:

• Mr Lansley “has put abortion law reform at the forefront of the agenda”. All that’s happened is that Mr Lansley has answered a question about it, in an wide-ranging interview with the main newspaper group supporting an upper limit reduction. Similar hype was whipped up by the same newspaper group and by the Pro-Life Alliance after Michael Howard, the then Conservative leader, answered the same question in the same way prior to the 2005 election. In any case, Mr Lansley “stressed that any further move to change the law would have to be initiated by a backbench MP and would be subject to a free vote in the Commons.” Reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions simply isn’t on the new government’s agenda, let alone “at the forefront”. If there is a free vote by MPs, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.

• a reduction in the upper time limit “is certainly a step towards our final aim of bringing abortion to an end in the United Kingdom”. Even if such a reduction were passed, it will not ensure a reduction in the numbers of late-term abortions (let alone of abortions generally), as I’ve blogged before. Pro-lifers made the same mistake in 1990.*

• “[w]e…are confident that a tightening of the current regulations will result”. The Pro-Life Alliance said the same thing before the votes on abortion in 2008, when all the amendments to reduce the upper time limit for social abortions were defeated by comfortable margins (as SPUC predicted). Only a last-ditch concerted effort by SPUC and other pro-life groups resulted in a government decision, effectively, not to provide time for pro-abortion amendments to be debated.

Yet Mr Burstow’s voting record on euthanasia was mixed. He voted for the Mental Capacity Act at second and third readings. The Mental Capacity Act enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. Mr Burstow voted against an anti-euthanasia amendment on advance directives (so-called “living wills”), whilst voting for anti-euthanasia amendments at other points.

Pro-lifers should instead be focusing on ensuring that the new government does not take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools – plans that would result in an increase in abortions.

*It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally. People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth. It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

Ken Clarke, justice secretary (as health minister in the Thatcher government, he helped ensure the success of pro-abortion amendments and the defeat of anti-abortion amendments to the HFE Act 1990)

Danny Alexander, Scottish secretary

David Laws, chief secretary to the treasury (cf. House of Commons, 28 Jan 2010)

Cheryl Gillan, Welsh secretary

Sir George Young, leader of the Commons

More likely that not to be helpful or unobstructive to the pro-life cause:

Theresa May, home secretary

William Hague, foreign secretary

Eric Pickles, communities secretary

Baroness Warsi, Conservative party co-chairman

Dr Liam Fox, defence secretary

Michael Gove, education secretary

Caroline Spelman, environment secretary

Owen Paterson, Northern Ireland secretary

Philip Hammond, transport secretary

Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary

Damian Green, immigration minister

David Willetts, university, science and skills minister

Could go either way, depending on the issue:

Vince Cable, business secretary

Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary

Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Lords

Francis Maude, cabinet office minister

Nick Herbert, policing reform minister

Oliver Letwin, cabinet office minister

Greg Clark, communities minister

Grant Shapps, housing minister

David Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, have made clear their support for wider access to abortion, under their guise of support for reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions. Now is the time, not for some headlong rush at abortion law reform, but rather for strong representations to ministers and MPs not to take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools.

Wednesday, 12 May 2010

After 13 years of anti-life laws and policies being enacted by the Labour government, we face a renewal of such laws and policies under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. David Cameron has made clear that faith schools should not be free to teach that abortion is wrong. Andrew Lansley, who is expected to be named health secretary, has made clear his support for easier access to abortion. Nick Clegg has confirmed his support for an anti-life approach to sex education.

However, as a Catholic parent, I consider that a greater threat than the coalition government is the policy of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. The Catholic Church in this country has responsibility for over 2,000 schools and for over 5,000 parishes. It is estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1 million practising Catholics in the UK, more than the membership of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties put together. The Catholic Church is a major body in this country which clearly has the size and potential influence to provide truly significant resistance to the culture of death emanating from parliament. Yet the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales supports laws and policies which extends the culture of death already at work in our hospitals and schools.

Archbishop Peter Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, issued a statement this morning, saying:

"In wishing the new government well, it is good for us all to recall that many of the deep seated problems of our society can only be addressed through a renewal of shared values. Change for the better cannot be left to politicians alone to bring about. It needs all of us."

Yet Archbishop Smith's way of addressing "problems", renewing "shared values" and "change for the better" has the appearance of endorsing pro-assisted suicide policy. Also, as I have mentioned before, Archbishop Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, publicly opposed SPUC's campaign on the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity bill (now Act), welcomed the bill, accepted the Blair government's assurances on the bill, and co-operated with the government in ensuring its passage through parliament. The Act enshrines in statute law euthanasia by neglect.

The Catholic Education Service (CES), which represents the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, worked closely with the Labour government to promote the government's anti-life plans for compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE). It has appointed Greg Pope, a former Labour MP with a lengthy anti-life and anti-family records, as its new deputy director. Also, the CES welcomes into Catholic schools Connexions, whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions' advisers are trained to tell young people that they can obtain abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or consent.

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Simon Caldwell reports in the Telegraph today that Raquel Welch (pictured) has said:

"the widespread use of oral contraceptives had led to a breakdown in norms of sexual morality and fuelled the growth of rampant promiscuity among the young".

It would be interesting, I think, for students and scholars to compare and contrast Raquel Welch's concerns with the prophetic warning of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. He wrote:

"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (HV17)

Only last week I suggested that the pro-life should start a counter-revolution on the oral contraceptive pill. I said that symposia need to be organized by the pro-life movement worldwide and suggested four topics to be addressed at such symposia. A fifth topic could be the concerns raised this week by Raquel Welch.

Simon Caldwell concludes his report with these interesting comments from the worldwide star who shot to fame in the 1960s:

She said that in spite of her own three failed marriages she still believed that marriage is the "cornerstone of civilisation, an essential institution that stabilises society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy".

Sunday, 9 May 2010

The Washington Times has published an insightful commentary on pro-abortion "feminism" by Joseph Meaney (pictured with Therese-Marie his daughter), one of the world's most experienced international pro-life activists.

Saturday, 8 May 2010

The UNFPA has drawn attention this week to the 50th anniversary of the approval of oral contraceptive pills in the US. The anniversary occurs tomorrow, Mother's Day in the US, as UNFPA is at pains to mention.

And today at an all-day symposium on the pill and its consequences “50 Years after the Pill — The Revolution Continues” is taking place in Washington. One of the speakers at this symposium is Nafis Sadik (pictured). (In 1991, as UNFPA's executive director Nafis Sadik said: "China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth.” [Xinhua, 11 April 1991] In 2002 China's State Family Planning Commission gave Nafis Sadik its own Population Award.)

I think counter symposia need to be organized by the pro-life movement worldwide, symposia for which I would suggest the working title "50 years after the Pill - the counter-revolution begins".

Such symposia should focus on the fact that virtually all contraceptive drugs and devices – with the exception of course of prophylactics like condoms – may work abortifaciently as their manufacturers freely acknowledge.

Also, two major sessions at this symposium should cover the fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae on artificial birth control and, in particular, the following extract from section 17:

"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.”

The first of these sessions should be addressed by scholars who are expert in China's coercive abortion/birth control policy - the one-child policy - which provides such a brutally tragic fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophecy. The UNFPA's participation in China's forced abortion one-child policy is, of course, well-documented. China's policy is funded by regular donations from over 180 countries worldwide, including over 40 million US dollars from the UK in 2007.

The second of these sessions should be addressed by experts on how the Catholic church authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the British government in imposing the use of birth control, including abortion, on Catholic (and non-Catholic) families. Catholic authorities, which include the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, are doing this by welcoming into Catholic schools Connexions whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions' advisers are trained to tell young people that they can obtain abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or consent. This session might also deal with how Archbishop Vincent Nichols painted in an entirely positive light the British government's sex and relationship education proposals - which were defeated in Parliament just before the general election. These proposals which would have enabled the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality* in schools in England, including Catholic schools.

Finally, expert speakers should be invited to explain how countless human lives have been destroyed as a result of the rejection of Humanae Vitae and its teaching on the wrongfulness of the separation of the unitive significance and procreative significance of the conjugal act, not least through birth control and IVF practices, including amongst Catholics (albeit on the question of the separation of the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marital act SPUC itself has no policy. The Society is made up of people of all faiths and none and SPUC’s remit is solely concerned with defending the right to life from conception till natural death.)

The pro-life movement, including everyone in the movement of all faiths and none, needs to understand and to teach the truth that our crisis began with the rejection of Humanae Vitae. It will end with its acceptance and implementation. As a Catholic I am convinced that the acceptance and implementation of the prophetic teaching of Humanae Vitae will only be possible if there is a radical change in the nomination policy of Bishops throughout the world. The nominations of bishops who do not have a sustained and genuine track record of fidelity to the teachings of the Magisterium on the transmission of human life (Humanae Vitae) must stop. Such nominations must stop because the cost in babies' lives is simply too great. Humanae Vitae which has been re-stated in Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate must become central to our movement.

If any pro-life leaders are interested in the idea of organizing such symposia - do please contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

*(I emphasise that my comments above, both as a Catholic and as a pro-lifer, are motivated and inspired by John Paul II’s words in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97 that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.)

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.ukSign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email servicesFollow SPUC on TwitterJoin SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://www.socialmarking.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Social Bookmarking&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Friday, 7 May 2010

Last night's historic general election results present both opportunities and dangers for the pro-life movement. There were a number of good results:

Harrow East: Tony McNulty, the anti-life Labour minister, was defeated by Bob Blackman (Conservative), who assured SPUC of his intentions to vote pro-life if elected. A team of local SPUC members distributed many thousands of leaflets in the constituency.

Stockton South: Dari Taylor, the anti-life Labour MP, was defeated by James Wharton (Conservative), who also told SPUC of his intention to vote pro-life if elected. The local SPUC branch also distributed leaflets in Stockton South.

Cardiff North: Jonathan Evans (Conservative), a pro-life MEP and former MP, was elected. SPUC has worked closely with Mr Evans in various issues, and SPUC members were active in the constituency during the election campaign.

Jacquie Smith (Labour, home secretary), originally elected via the pro-abortion EMILY's List.

Oxford West and Abingdon: Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat), perhaps the most anti-life MP, was defeated by Nicola Blackwood (Conservative). In 2008, I gave Dr Harris (popularly known as "Dr Death"), a special lifetime Orwell Award for his outstanding use of “political language ... designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (George Orwell)

Those are some of the individual highlights for the pro-life movement from last night's results. It's difficult to give an overall assessment. Some pro-life MPs lost their seats (e.g. David Drew, Labour, Stroud) and some pro-life hopefuls (Phillippa Stroud, Conservative, Sutton and Cheam) were not elected.

The most immediate concern for SPUC in this new Parliament is to protect children from the pro-abortion ideology which lies behind plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory in England from the age of five. SPUC is therefore to launch a campaign against sex education proposals as the new Parliament meets.

In the last Parliament, plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory from 5 to 16 years had to be abandoned by the (Labour) government when it was forced to negotiate with opposition parties in the “wash up” period immediately prior to the general election. Parents and children were betrayed by MPs and by church leaders in England and Wales who backed the government’s plans.

The three major party leaders and their parties have all signalled their support for an anti-life/anti-family approach to sex and relationships education (though the Conservative party's behaviour regarding the Labour government's bill has been inconsistent). Whichever party or parties form the new government, the danger is basically the same.

The government’s compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE) policies sought to impose their ideology regarding so-called sexual and reproductive health. This ideology included the confidential provision of abortion and birth control drugs and devices to children under the age of 16 without parental knowledge or consent, as Ed Balls, who was Secretary of State for schools, repeatedly made clear.

This ideology is embedded in the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families, which is unaffected by the general election (and a change of government).

Parents must fight back against the policies promoting abortion and attacking young children’s natural reserve and innocence in sexual matters. Parents have a right and a duty to protect their children. They have been betrayed by MPs, and by Catholic and Anglican church leaders who have not told the truth, and who backed the government’s plans to make abortion and birth control drugs and devices accessible, on a completely confidential basis, to schoolchildren throughout England.

Parents have a right and duty to know if their young teenage children are receiving so-called sexual health procedures such as abortion, long-term birth control implants, the morning-after pill, or STD/HIV tests and treatment.

SPUC is therefore launching a parents’ right to know campaign and will be organizing regional seminars for headteachers and for parents on the threat posed by the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families.

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Catholic on Line seems pretty certain about rumours of the formation of a new pontifical council - a pontifical council for the new evangelization.

I might have shared this enthusiasm were it not for another rumour that Pope Benedict may be about to invite Archbishop Rino Fisichella (pictured) to preside over this new council.

Readers may recall that last February five prominent members of the Pontifical Academy for Life - following a meeting of the Academy - called on Pope Benedict to remove Archbishop Fisichella as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Their unprecedented step was prompted by Archbishop Fisichella's opening address to members of the Academy in which he stood by the original wording of his article in L'Osservatore Romano, last year, which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. I explained the potentially disastrous implications of Archbishop Fisichella's article in a talk at the 4th Pro-Life World Congress in Saragossa last November. Fr Finigan in The Hermeneutic of Continuity also covered the matter fully last July.

How, I wonder, would Frances Kissling, of Catholics for a Free Choice, respond to Archbishop Fisichella's appointment to such an important post - she who memorably said of the archbishop's article in L'Osservatore Romano that it "has opened a crack, through which women, doctors and political decision-makers can slip in"?

Or how would the US President Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, his pro-abortion, secretary of state - who are bankrolling abortion worldwide - respond to such a papal appointment?

How would such a scandalous appointment affect the world's perception of Catholic moral teaching on abortion? And, in Obama's push for a universal right to abortion, how would such an appointment affect the world's perception of conscientious objection to abortion on the part of health professionals?

According to Catholic on Line:

" ... The new department will be aimed at bringing the Gospel back to Western societies that have lost their Christian identity ... There is a desperate need for such a new evangelization. Many Catholic Christians do not know what the Church actually teaches and have embraced what some have called a 'cafeteria Catholicism'- choosing what parts of their faith they will follow ... "

Yes - and that's precisely the problem with appointing Archbishop Rino Fisichella to such a role. The position set out by Archbishop Fisichella, like the collaboration of the bishops of England and Wales with the British government on life issues, are cancers which are threatening to destroy countless human lives. A perception that Cafeteria Catholicism prevails in the church will end up serving up the right to abortion worldwide.

In the interests of the lives of unborn babies worldwide Archbishop Fisichella should be removed form the Pontifical Academy for Life without the consolation prize of a promotion especially one which might make him a Cardinal.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.ukSign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email servicesFollow SPUC on TwitterJoin SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://www.socialmarking.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Social Bookmarking&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

John Smeaton

About Me

I became involved in SPUC after graduating, when I established a branch in south London in 1974. I have worked full-time for SPUC for 39 years. I became chief executive of SPUC in the UK in 1996, having been general secretary since 1978. I was elected vice-president of International Right to Life Federation in 2005. At UN conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul and Rome, I helped coordinate more than 150 pro-life/pro-family groups resulting in pro-life victories in Cairo, Istanbul and Rome. I was educated at Salesian College, London, before going to Oxford where I graduated in English Language and Literature. I qualified as a teacher, becoming head of English at a secondary school. I am married to Josephine. We have a grown-up family and we live in north London.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help to me in researching, writing and producing this blog.

Sign up for email alerts

Twitter @spucprolife

Images

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.